U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #64

cdumler wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of insurance is such that individuals share the burden to cover random, life-impacting events. From the consumer side, insurance is the purchase of a service to cover any a future debt falling under the category of the service, ie. an unforeseeable, unintentional act of damage by or to the consumer. I have no intention of burning down my house. I pay so that if it were to happen, I am not stuck paying off…

So how is that different from hedging your bets? Insurance is gambling. The servicer is the house and always wins (unless they screw up). That is not to say that gambling can't serve purposes other than entertainment, because it can. That doesn't make it not gambling.

Post by bjelkeman-again » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #70

MRD85 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Australia, which has very relaxed gambling laws. I can walk into most pubs/bars in my city and find poker machines for example, as well as a sports/horse betting facility. There are huge social consequences to gambling. If you look at an entire society you have some people that will have problems with it and some people that won't. You may fall into the "won't" pile but surely society benefits if we prevent…

> surely society benefits if we prevent a large number of our members from falling prey to addiction. how does society benefit from prohibiting people from doing things that only hurt themselves?

Post by jandrese » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #70

MRD85 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Australia, which has very relaxed gambling laws. I can walk into most pubs/bars in my city and find poker machines for example, as well as a sports/horse betting facility. There are huge social consequences to gambling. If you look at an entire society you have some people that will have problems with it and some people that won't. You may fall into the "won't" pile but surely society benefits if we prevent…

> surely society benefits if we prevent a large number of our members from falling prey to addiction. how does society benefit from prohibiting people from doing things that only hurt themselves?

Post by larrydag » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

andrewla wrote: post #84

andruby wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lotteries are reverse solidarity: a lot of people pay to make 1 person rich. Lotteries are my prime example when I want to highlight that humans don't act rationally

Lotteries are rational for the same reason that insurance is rational. Insurance on the face of it is irrational -- insurance companies make money, therefore buying insurance is paying a premium above what the expected reimbursement is over the lifetime of the insurance. It's a reverse lottery; the expected outlays exceed the expected returns. What you pay the premium for in insurance is to reduce downside variance.…

Post by andrewla » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

existencebox wrote: post #18

ejstronge wrote: post #5

As it may be of interest, here's the related portion of the Wire Act: Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to…

By my most literal interpretation of this law my inlaws can now be arrested for our march madness bracket. This seems absurd that we've let even this level of ambiguity come to pass in a country that used to pride itself on personal liberty; especially when the law was paid for by clear corporate cronyism and special interests to benefit from its passage. Can anyone legally versed tell me why I shouldn't be this ince…